Definition
A writ of arrest issuing in the action of account render (also called *actio de computo*) after entry of an interlocutory judgment of *quod computet* — meaning "that he account." When a court had determined that a defendant owed an accounting but the defendant refused to appear personally before the auditors appointed to examine the account, the *capias ad computandum* issued to compel his personal attendance. If the defendant could not find mainpernors (sureties for his appearance), he was committed to prison until he submitted to the accounting.
The writ belongs to the *capias* family — writs authorizing arrest of a person — but it is specific to the procedural posture of account render. It was not a final judgment writ; it was an enforcement mechanism for a preliminary stage of litigation.
---
Common Confusion
CAPIAS AD COMPUTANDUM vs. OTHER CAPIAS WRITS: The *capias* family is large and the distinctions matter. The *capias ad respondendum* arrested a defendant to compel an answer to a complaint. The *capias ad satisfaciendum* (ca. sa.) arrested a judgment debtor to compel satisfaction of a final judgment. The *capias ad computandum* falls between these: it arises after a liability finding but before final judgment, compelling only the intermediate step of accounting. Researchers encountering "capias" alone in historical records must identify which variant is present before drawing conclusions about the stage of proceedings.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is a reliable marker for a specific and now-obsolete procedural sequence. Encountering *capias ad computandum* in a historical record tells a researcher several things at once: the underlying action was account render; an interlocutory judgment of *quod computet* had already been entered; the defendant was resisting the accounting phase; and the court had resorted to arrest to compel compliance.
The action of account render was itself largely displaced by equity jurisdiction and, later, by modern accounting procedures and discovery mechanisms. The *capias ad computandum* therefore appears almost exclusively in materials predating the nineteenth century, and in English sources more than American ones. American courts that retained the action of account render did not always preserve the full procedural apparatus surrounding it, including this writ, meaning its appearance in American records is less frequent and its use more variable than in English practice.
Researchers working in colonial or early republic-era records — particularly in jurisdictions that closely tracked English common law procedure — should be alert to this writ in fiduciary disputes: partnerships, agency relationships, receiverships, and estate accountings were the natural habitat of account render. Finding this writ signals that the accounting dispute had reached a contested intermediate stage, which has evidentiary significance for understanding what information the parties possessed and when.
The writ also intersects with the law of mainprise and imprisonment for debt. The possibility of commitment to prison on failure to find mainpernors connects *capias ad computandum* to the broader historical treatment of debtors — a subject with its own substantial corpus. Researchers studying imprisonment for debt should note that this writ could produce incarceration at a pre-judgment stage, which is procedurally distinct from post-judgment debtor imprisonment under *capias ad satisfaciendum*.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's, Bouvier's, and Rapalje & Lawrence agree closely on the core function of the writ. All three identify it as arising in account render after judgment of *quod computet* and serving to compel personal appearance before auditors. There is no meaningful divergence among them on this point.
Bouvier adds the most procedural texture, noting the option of delivery on mainprize and the consequence of commitment to the Fleet prison — details that situate the writ firmly in English practice and that may not translate directly to American jurisdictions, which lacked the Fleet. Black's formulation ("may issue") correctly reflects that this was a discretionary enforcement mechanism, not an automatic right.
None of the historical dictionary sources address the writ's fate in American jurisdictions with any specificity, and none address the point at which the action of account render (and thus this writ) effectively fell into disuse. Researchers should not assume that absence from later American treatises means the writ was formally abolished; more often it simply became unnecessary as equity and statutory procedures displaced the common law action.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The writ and the underlying action of account render were inherited from English common law but were not uniformly preserved in American state practice. Some states abolished the action of account render by statute; others absorbed its function into equity. The writ is most likely to appear in English records and in pre-nineteenth-century American records from jurisdictions that closely followed English common law procedure. Modern research encounters this term almost exclusively in historical context.
---